Jun 10, 2007

Howard Rheingold Interview: Cooperation in virtual worlds.

I had the
opportunity for a short interview with Howard Rheingold. Howard is the author of The Virtual Community and Smart Mobs, and a well respected
thinker and writer within the framework of social media, culture and digital
journalism. Howard has worked on the
Cooperation Commons, a joint
project with Institute for the Future so I
asked him some questions about his perspective on cooperation theories and how
they apply to a Second Life setting and on corporate utilization of the medium. The interview ends with Howard posting a
question for the TN readers to discussion and elaborate on.

Q: What
insights on cooperation have you acquired in Second Life so far?

Howard: I am still very much a newbie in Second Life. I am
reminded, however, of the complexities of the Unix-based Picospan environment
on the Well when I first arrived there in the mid 1980s. Not being technical,
most of us new arrivals needed help. So the complexity of the tools required to
socialize there required people who knew how they worked to teach newcomers. So
in a way, the difficulty of learning how to navigate in a 3D environment forces
newcomers to find friends, and forces those already there who want to grow a
rich social environment to spend time orienting newcomers.

Q:
Interesting. And, does some of the cooperation theories apply to a 3D space
like Second Life?

Howard: I don't want to make anything like a strong claim in regard to that
question, but some of the basics of cooperation theory apply: people are more
likely to cooperate with people in an identifiable group, knowing someone's
real name increases the possibility of cooperation, reciprocity builds trust,
etc. So if you want to increase cooperation among a collection of people in SL,
for example, give them all an identifiable badge or hat or shoe or other easily
visible apparel to identify each other.

Peder:
So Second Life must be a struggle from a perspective of cooperation’s theory
since avatars apparel is so diverse and individuality are emphasized?

Howard: Just
like the real world. If you walk down the street and see someone else in the
same apparel -- a business suit or a mohawk -- you are more likely to be
available to cooperate with that person. In some ways, despite the prevalence
of conflict and competition, humans are hardwired for cooperation. Some recent
theories hold that the prefrontal cortex that gives us all those
"higher" functions evolved because it enables social memory that
other primates don't have, and thus enables collective action -- collective
defense, collective food-gathering, etc.

Q:
And, how do those ”higher” functions of social memory apply to interactions
mediated through a masquerade (avatar)?

Howard:
Axelrod -- cooperation is dependent on the "shadow of the future."
You are more likely to cooperate today with someone who can reciprocate
tomorrow; you are less likely to cooperate today with someone who failed to
cooperate yesterday. So if people change their avatars all the time, they are
less likely to build up networks of potential reciprocators. Having a
persistent identity, even if it is pseudonymous, enables individuals to build
social capital.

Q:
And from a corporate perspective, building trust is thus about displaying a
persistent identity . But, how does world culture apply to this variable of trust
and cooperation via pseudonymous identities?

Howard:
Certainly a persistent identity that exhibits trustworthiness is essential to
brand -- a brand is a promise that a produce or service with this identity
meets certain criteria. Coke tastes the same. Nokia phones are of a certain
level of quality. Etc. Pseudonymous identities build trust by acting in a
trustworthy manner over time. It is more important to identify a past cheater
or co-operator than to know his or her real name. So behavior over time is the
most important factor, not whether you know exactly who is behind the mask.

Q: Which
build reputation?

Howard: Yes. Reputation is the record, *in the minds of others* of your past
behavior. You can influence your reputation through your behavior, but it is an
attribute of a social network, not an attribute that you own or control.

Q: Now,
about a Second Life setting for brainstorm sessions for development of new
ideas. Would the mediated communication through avatars yield a greater
potential for generating better ideas than in real life?

Howard: You
always have more bandwidth in a face to face setting, and that isn't going to
change soon. Humans have evolved highly sensitive perception mechanisms for
evaluating micro gestures, tone of voice, etc. The point about virtual worlds
is not that they are better for human communication, but that they enable
communication that wasn't possible before -- connecting with people you never
met and don't know but who share an interest, interacting in real time or
asynchronously with people all over the world, socializing in a simulated
environment and using simulations in communications. However, in brainstorming,
I'd say that there might be an advantage in NOT seeing the look of skepticism
(or tone of voice that denotes skepticism) on the faces of others. The only way
to tell is to experiment.

Q: To finish
off, is there a future for enhanced cooperation in 3D spaces? And, what does a
Second Life type application need to evolve into before it can seriously
interlink with cooperative processes that adds value in a real world business setting?

Howard: I
would recommend experimenting with exercises and games to see what works. The
great advantage of SL in experiments like this is that you can record them from
multiple angles and replay them for analysis later.

Q: One last
thing. Do you have something you'd want to share and discuss with the TN
community?

Howard: Here
is something I came across during our interview, for example. Would this work
in a 3D environment? Link

The
link in question contain details of a workshop methodology for eLearning, Web
2.0, and Games as MUD maps, that I would recommend reading. (Intro from the
blog post)

This
is the story of how I began to discover the way Web 2.0 may change learning for
college students, the three journeys involved in building online systems, and
why a workshop game may be a mud map. Oh, and how the Open Innovation Exchange model may be the way to tie a lot of these things together.

I
don't have insight knowledge about learning in 3D spaces or Second Life for
that matter but think that the methodology sounds like an interesting
experiment to carry out but TN community members with more expertise might have insights to share on the
subject?

Comments

1.

A very interesting interview, thank you for sharing! I think, he is right in many senses that cooperative behavior should be better supported and encouraged in SL, but some of his suggestions are too a literal translation of the 'RL' practices (e.g., badges etc.) I tend to think that SL (as well as other 3D virtual worlds) can, and should offer something uniquely indigenous, something very specific to resolve the issue. Yes, they are all rooted, and grounded in the RL, but they are all a unique media, which yet has to shape its own 'message'.

I agree with centralasian that the notion of hats or shoes or tags is too literal. But Howard Rheinhold's point is correct, that people devise badges of affiliation for virtual worlds, sometimes larger than life, and one obvious one is the group, and the group tag. People have 25 group slots per avatar in SL and they work at making the tags meaningful or humorous but instantly identifiable.

I think even while there is a vast variety of avatar styles, the groupings of "furry" or "blingtard" or "BDSM" or whatever are groupings of outfits and paraphrenalia which signal affiliation in a group.

There are quite a few ways in which communication in SL is worse, not better, due to the scrolling text, the difficulty of people in a group meeting to follow it, the tendency to stop on the scroll indiscriminately when talking, the undermining of the group consensus through private IMs, etc.

The weapons-like ban tools also mean that a lot of red fences go up constantly.

Where SL is a better communication tool isn't in perceptional bandwidth, but emotional bandwidth.

Just as people are more emotional and say more in email, sometimes in intense ways that become disruptive in offices in RL, for example, so in SL the combination of the stripping away of the physical body, the anonymity for some, etc. makes for a very emotionally rich and deep bandwidth but it it means that the two sides of love and hate are very quickly flipped.

It's very easy to drive a neighbour crazy in SL for example just by putting a spinning bright box on your lawn -- something you'd never get away with doing in RL.

I don't think more trust accrues to someone merely because their RL name is known. I do think consistency of action is important. I once said, in plus-rating a friend, that he was volatile, but predictably volatile, for example.

What troubles me always in these writings not only from Rheingold but the others linked is the emphasis on the "collective". The collective becomes very oppressive, constantly out there affiliating, shaping, conforming, bringing around. I like the distinctions that some make between cooperation and collaboration, being yoked into a constant group definition of the self by group reputation, affiliation, etc. versus consent to cooperate on certain things.

I think the beauty of SL is that it lets you chose a narrow bandwidth as well as a broad one to deal with some people you wouldn't ever deal with, if you had to deal with the entire spectrum of their bandwidth.

Somehow, when reading such things, I think of this Ayn Rand quote, even not being a Randian:

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

I really bristle when I read articles on here which for all appearances ignorantly assume that SL WILL be the default VW for the masses. As reported on Mark Wallaces glob, Gartner research recently predicted that today's leading VW platform providers will not likely even be around in 5 years. As indicated in many articles here: http://www.virtualworldsnews.com/, we will see some heavy players come out in the next 12 ~ 18 months.

The other thing worth noting is that 30,000 concurrent users amounts to nothing in todays world of member bases. Would rather have seen Harold do some analysis on the members of myspace and WoW.

Thanks (Howard) for picking up on the e-learning game and Open Innovation Exchange or OIE. This and more workshop games here. The game is about how a group f2f can use cards and other props to design a Web 2.0 learning environment. The OIE demonstrates an open collaborative approach in developing (in this instance) a tender document for a Government contract of an innovation exchange. The process has been challenging - but got us shortlisted for interview at Cabinet Office tomorrow! I'm not a virtual world specialist, but maybe there are a number of possible angles:
* using a workshop game to start design in SL - whether for learning or other purpose
* creating a similar workshop in SL
* promoting and practising open processes in SL
Anyway, delighted to hear from anyone interested in experimenting

>I really bristle when I read articles on here which for all appearances ignorantly assume that SL WILL be the default VW for the masses. As reported on Mark Wallaces glob, Gartner research recently predicted that today's leading VW platform providers will not likely even be around in 5 years. As indicated in many articles here: http://www.virtualworldsnews.com/, we will see some heavy players come out in the next 12 ~ 18 months.

The bristling that you experience is as annoying as the Kool-Aid drinking and hype that the pro-SL gang purveys.

Why the bristle? Sure, there will be lots of virtual worlds. Are they going to be any good, though? So far, the other ones out there like There or Kaneva don't have the depth and freedom and creativity of Second Life. Maybe they will some day, but it's hard to imagine it will in 12-18 months. Something like Home or Spore could completely drain out the masses of SL if it proves compelling even without user-made content -- that's not necessarily what *is* going to be compelling for the masses.

Will that kill of SL? No, because it can very likely still have a very sizeable population of business people, educators, content-creators, etc.

The idea that something will "not be around" isn't at all persuasive to me. All the Web 1 and 2 gurus go around knocking AOL as a model, swearing up and down that there will never be anything like AOL and AOL is dead. But...AOL is very much alive and droves of people use it, especially the AIM part of it. It doesn't pay to be ideological about these things.

One thing to consider in terms of Howard's observations is that there is a form of cooperation in virtual worlds that is almost the fun-house mirror image of some of what he's describing--the kind of anonymized, emergent, simultaneous action that he discussed in Smart Mobs. But that kind of cooperation is almost always for short-term and relatively inconsequential objectives.

Timothy, maybe those emergent actions just have to be harnessed somehow, in the accelerated intense atmosphere of that world, perhaps that can happen, under the right conditions.

Amarilla, of course VWs have feasible utility, don't be silly. In 5-10 years they'll be all over the place, no one in the urban centers will live without them, and your challenge will be to show how the unenhanced reality is a feasible utility.

Oh yeah, my mistake. Must be so, because in 2015 i'll be busy planting crops in Kansas or maybe somewhere near Shang Hai suburbs ( haven't decided yet ) , and the wireless / satellite will be just a bad dream. Meanwhile , everybody in the urban centers will have plenty of time , money and interest into....doing....well, i'm not very sure exactely what , in VWs ( except having fun ).
Now i've got it ! " Having fun " must be the utility, right ?! Oh dear , i really have to move to California these years , sooner or later. ( Or , better, never - if after 5-10 years i'd be posting like you do )

I would have liked Howard to have commented on more formal/technical reputation systems, such as the recently disbanded one in SL, or Omidyar's, or Amazon's, and how these accomplish or don't accomplish the functions of less formal reputation systems.

Second Life may have gained a following, but 3D life is still not the most effective form of communication for anything, in my opinion. 2D social networking sites seem to be a much better option at this time, and take far less time to learn. For example, Nussbaum from Businessweek suggests facebook is the place to be for advertising, even more so than SL. Check out: http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/06/facebook_is_on.html.

As far as the interviewers question on brainstorming: Brainstorming social networking does exist, and you don't need an avatar to participate. Check out www.brainreactions.net and ask other brainstormers a question. I think specific genre networking groups will be a much more effective and popular route than SL, at least for the next few years.